Supreme Court Young Man Found Guilty On Manslaughter Charge

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29269, 29 July 1960, Page 20

Supreme Court Young Man Found Guilty On Manslaughter Charge

John Arthur Campbell, aged 20, a floor sander, was found guilty yesterday by - a jury in the Supreme Court on a charge of manslaughter. The jury added a very strong recommendation for mercy. Campbell was charged with unlawfully killing John Winston Blampied, aged 18, a shop assistant, on May 10, thereby committing manslaughter. The evidence was that Campbell had fired a 12-gauge shotgun belonging to his brother, Garnet Maxwell Campbell, aged 19, at Blampied in a flat at 556 Barbadoes street Campbell had believed the gun to be unloaded and had pulled the trigger in fun. Hie jury took two hours to consider its verdict Mr Justice Macarthur remanded Campbell in custody for sentence on August 5. His Honour told the jury he would take careful note of its recommendation. Mr C. M. Roper appeared for the Crown and Mr B. J. Drake for Campbell. The accused, Campbell, giving evidence in his own defence when the trial continued yesterday said he unloaded his gun at the Waimakariri river When it was too dark to shoot and they were on the point of returning home. “I unloaded my gun and I told my brother I was unloading. I naturally assumed he had unloaded his. I have never returned

home with a loaded gun and I have never before known my brother to have a loaded gun on the way home,” accused said. He described taking his brother's gun into his brother's flat The gun was under the crook of his right arm pointing to the floor. Blampied was in the kitchen and told the accused there was only one meal. Accused said this did not concern him at all as he had a meal ready for him at his own home. To get through the narrow door to the kitchen, accused said he had raised the gun. "Fulled Trigger”

"The gun was pointing at Blampied. I thought it was unloaded. I released the safety catch and pulled the trigger. I expected to hear a click. When the gun went off, I immediately threw the gun down to my right. I was very confused. Blampied reeled back. "When my brother came into the room I asked him why the hell he had it loaded.” Accused said he told Constable N. E. Walker the same night that the gun must have bumped against something to make it go off. “I was'rather shaken and upset. I suppose I told the constable that to evade further questions,” accused said. He said he had repeated the same explanation to DetectiveSergeant F. G. Pine and Constable Walker on May 24. but later admitted he had pointed the gun at Blampied. “I did not aim the gun at Blampied. I swung it round casually and it was pointing at him.” On May 30, accused said, he called at the C. 1.8. office with his solicitor, and made a statement setting out correctly what happened. On June 28 he first knew he was going to be charged. To Mr Roper, accused said he had been using shotguns for three years and a half. It would take only a fraction of a second to "break” a shotgun to see if any shells were in the breach. Mr Roper: When did you decide you were going to have a bit of fun with Blampied with the gun? Accused: It was on the spur of the moment You told Mr Pine you were fooling with the gun; what did you mean by that?—l meant that I pointed the gun casually towards Blampied and pulled the trigger. You swung the gun round horizontally with the intention of aiming it towards Blampied?—Yes. Have you been told, never to point a gun at anyone?—Yes. Counsel For Defence Mr Drake in his address to the jury submitted that Blampied’s death was purely accidental. Manslaughter was culpable homicide, surely this was excusable homicide. The accused was not seeking to blame his brother, but surely he was entitled to think the brother had unloaded the gun. “If the accused’s brother had unloaded his gun, the accused would not be Where he is now,” counsel said. From' the very first, when accused unloaded his gun at the Waimakariri river, he had believed hlis brother’s gun had been unloaded. He had told police this from his first interview and had reiterated it in evidence. Mr Roper said there was little in dispute about the main facts of the case. It was not disputed that the accused had killed Blampied with his brother’s shotgun. The Crown did not dispute that the accused had believed the gun was unloaded or that it was pointed at Blampied in fun. But the fact remained that the accused had taken no steps to ensure the gun was not loaded. The only way to ensure the gun was empty was to break it, file work of a second.

The accused had at first told an untrue story and stuck to it until wiser counsel prevailed. It was perhaps natural that the accused in his upset state should clutch at any straw and the jury should not hold any prejudice against him for it.

However the jury was entitled to infer that the accused knew right from the start he had done something wrong, Mr Roper submitted.